Search form

You are here

Technique vs Power

Following a discussion within my group I thought I would see the views of others out there in the martial world.

If the aim a certain move is its function over form, ie the aim of a punch is to knock somebody out and not to look good, then does that develop a risk of creating powerful moves that have little techinque to them?

The question is whether you would prefer your students to have

a) a powerful punch that has little technique, or

b) a weaker punch but with correct technique

My answer would be that I would rather have option b to begin with, as I believe it is the technique which enables the student to develop as much power as possible through their strike. So they are connected in a way that good power comes from good technique and you cannot have good power on its own.

It all comes down to power. What your saying is they are mutually exclusive, the should be the same. Your technique punch should have more power than your 'power' punch. If the technique you are using is not generating enough power, its wrong. In that case, the techniqie is wrong, not the idea you should be generating power.

Of course there are considerations, like running at someone might generate more power, but isnt practical.

So yes, in your case I would prefer option B, provided the technique is right, because once they have mastered that technique the power should be greater than if they were still throwing haymakers like they were at the beginning.

Bearing in mind that, to me, the technique (done correctly) is what generates the power (ie the swivelling of the hips generates the kinetic energy from the legs and rest of your body to deliver in that single inch of knuckle that deliver the final product - the punch) surely you cannot have power without proper technique?

Having studied karate for quite a long time, I have seen many beginners go from punching with "just their arm" to punchig with their whole body and indeed have seen my own technique go in a simiar way. Teaching personal protection to staff in high risk areas, the technique taught for punching is a very simple, yet effective punch in a piston like motion but still focusing on the kinetic energy created from the hips to generate the power.

When teaching technique, on of the ways you can FEEL if you are getting it right is if you get more power. If you are told something and correct it, and then feel it is more powerful, you know its better.

A very common question! However, this is one of those questions that would only ever be asked in martial arts circles; because martial arts are pretty unique in physical endeavours in that what is frequently defined as “good technique” is divorced from function.

In almost all other activities “good” and “functional” are one and the same. In martial arts we have what I call “artificial success criteria” where a technique is deemed “good” because of arbitrary dictates such as “style purity”, pure aesthetics etc. What we should have is “good” being determined by what is most functional and efficient. Such a technique will be powerful, and it will look just like a good technique should look.

I doubt very much that in a swimming club the question would ever be asked, “Is it better to have a good stroke or a stroke that quickly and efficiently propels the swimmer through the water?” The reason being that there is no choice to be made. By definition a “good” stroke is one that quickly and efficiently propels the swimmer through the water. We should have that in the martial arts too! A correct punch is the most powerful way to punch. The pursuit of correctly technique is the pursuit of power and vice versa. And if it is not, we need to question how what we define as “correct” can be correct if it results in a weaker strike?

It's very difficult for a small person to have "power" in their punch. Therefore the smaller person must pay close attention to proper technique to gain maximum power from their small frame. A larger person has more raw power and it's very difficult to tell them they need better technique because raw power is working for them. So definitely proper technique first. Small people understand karate is for the small to overcome the bigger adversary. How? better technique!

As mentioned above, there is quite a fallacy in assuming "good technique" and "power" are unrelated or mutually exclusive.

Perhaps the dichotomy that is being proposed here is actually closer to "power through mechanically efficient technique" versus "power through an agressive mental attitude and natural physical strength"?

Again, these two are not mutually exclusive in any way, but at least you can emphasise one or the other in training.

Of course to qualify the arguments above, we may experience a drop in power to begin with when we use a new technique. We arent used to it and it takes time to get good at the exercise. In that case you would be chosing technique over power, but only in the short term. In the long term your going to have more of both. Like going faster to go slow.

Brain scans have revealed distinctive features in the brain structure of karate experts, which could be linked to their ability to punch powerfully from close range.

This is true for everything, Training the CNS and the neuromuscular component of our bodies is jsut as important as anything else. Its how olymipic weightlifters can lift a lot more than they look like they can,

I have often considered that many people find their way into fighting arts dojos/gyms because they feel they lack strength or power and want to gain it. As they can't generate it naturally they look to learning 'technique' to help them and in the case of a smaller person learning 'good' technique will usually increase their power as they learn to utilise their whole body and not just the bit they hit with, it has certainly done that for me. Granted there is a transition period whilst improving this technique where power may be reduced until the technique becomes more natural, if you've ever had golf lessons your game usually goes pear shaped for a while after until you get used to a new grip/swing thought! But as many have mentioned, I don't think the two are mutually exclusive as most guys I've trained with who had good technique were pretty powerful, certainly beyond what they would have been for their size.

When you get up against big guys, with good technique, that's when it gets difficult!

It almost seems the question should be changed a bit, language being what it is, to clarify things. What if it were

Would you rather have:

A) An effective technique

B) An asthetically/stylistically correct technique

As Iain has said, and he has a pod cast somewhere that addresses this, much of karate has divorced what physically works, from what is acceptable. At some point how something looked, the angle of the foot, the turn of the wrist, the chamber of the kick, became important for how it looked, and not how it worked. Karate had to chamber it's punch to the hip, unless you were of certain styles that chamber to the chest, and fire that reverse punch out of a front stance. If you didn't, it wasn't karate. Heck, even people who have never trained fell into this trap. If it didn't "look like karate" it wasn't really a karate technique.

Naturally stronger people start with a higher work potential than weaker ones. Technique doesn't change that. What good technique does is maximize the power you have. Even if a punch, for example, isn't the prettiest text book example, it can still have good technique. It will need to be explosive, relaxed, link the body to the striking limb and target a good location. If it is "ugly" by an asthetic measure it isn't by default bad technique.

So is it more a case of seperating the two? Maintaining "good technique" in the dojo while using more "brute force" in a real situation?

I for one can relate to this in a way, in the Karate dojo, I use correct technique, however in my job, I am instructed (and indeed instruct others) in using a more "street effective" technique for punching someone.

So is it more a case of seperating the two? Maintaining "good technique" in the dojo while using more "brute force" in a real situation?

I for one can relate to this in a way, in the Karate dojo, I use correct technique, however in my job, I am instructed (and indeed instruct others) in using a more "street effective" technique for punching someone.

No, why would you practice in the dojo what you dont use? Although the point about technique is something I have wondered about. Boxers are great at punching, the way they do it is the best. As Iain pointed out when boxers fight outside the ring, it goes messy. Maybe MMA is a better example of how punching happens in real life?

Anywany, my point was that if when we fight our technique becomes messy, is there any point practicing the technically correct version? (when I say correct im saying the most devastatingly powerful) On the one hand, doing so may mean you are more likely to use that powerful punch in real life. On the other hand, if you punch properly, there are alot of small details and in a real situation you might not be in the right stance or something and it might not be applicable

The main issue to me is keeping things simple. Having been involved in quite a few self protection situations in my job, I know from experience, I would not have had time to think "Are my feet in the right stance, are my hands in the right position, are my hips loaded" etc etc, had I done that I would have had my head taken off! Instead, by only concerning myself with the fist being straight and as in line with my wrist, elbow and shoulder as it can be, I was able to perform a strong enough punch (with hip rotation), that meant I could use the moment of confussion to make good my escape.

The main issue to me is keeping things simple. Having been involved in quite a few self protection situations in my job, I know from experience, I would not have had time to think "Are my feet in the right stance, are my hands in the right position, are my hips loaded" etc etc, had I done that I would have had my head taken off! Instead, by only concerning myself with the fist being straight and as in line with my wrist, elbow and shoulder as it can be, I was able to perform a strong enough punch (with hip rotation), that meant I could use the moment of confussion to make good my escape.

Is that not what we should be looking to do?

Exactly. Its just by training the punch as you want it to happen, is it more likely to happen that way in real life beacsue thats how your body does it normally?

Performance degrades under pressure for a variety of physical and pschological reasons. There is a reason to train a clean technique in the dojo. The cleaner you start, the less harm that degradation has on performance. Think of kata. We training them, as a solo pattern, to be perfect. When applying them in drills with resisting partners, they won't be as pretty, as perfect. However, if our training has been good, the key elements of those good techniques will remain in place.

I know it sounds like I'm arguing both sides here, and I suppose you could say that I am. The criteria a technique should be judged on, if you are seeking practical application, should be end effect. To have good end effect, something needs to be repeatable. If I can't consistantly get good power from a punch, and know why it happens, it's not a good technique. One offs are as much luck as anything else. Consistant results are brought on by attention to detail and practice of good habits. Slop in your techniques should be cleaned up because it represents lost or wasted power. A wild haymaker can represent a powerful strike. But, it has a lot of problem. Timing, holes in defense, recovery, telegraphying, etc. Martial artists look to clean up those kinds of problems, to make their game tighter through better technique. Better technique should also transfer more energy into a target at less expendature of energy on your part.

I keep thinking about food as an analogy. A good meal is filling and nutritious. A great meal is also beautiful on the plate. That beauty of presentation doesn't over ride the need to for the first two elements to be present. There is more to it, but that starts turning into a rambling expansion on content and ability vs. appearance criteria.